‘In a recent decision the Companies Court has held that trustees in bankruptcy do not need to satisfy the actual registration requirements set out in s.124(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA”) before presenting a just and equitable winding-up petition. For the first time, the decision in Stratford Edward Hamilton & James Ashley Dowers (Trustees in Bankruptcy of Charles Newell Brown) v Maureen Frances Brown & C&MB Holdings Ltd [2016] EWHC 191 (Ch)puts bankruptcy trustees in the same position as they are in with respect to unfair prejudice petitions and means that they do not have to wait a minimum of six months following their appointment to have the necessary locus to present a just and equitable winding up petition.’

“Where a minority shareholder had brought a petition under section 994 of the Companies Act alleging that remuneration paid to a director of a now insolvent company in liquidation was excessive and therefore unfairly prejudicial, there was no basis in the statutory provisions or in principle or in authority to impose a requirement for diligence on shareholders in regards to the company’s filed accounts.”

“The statutory right conferred on a member of a company to present an unfair prejudice petition under s 994 of the Companies Act 1996 was not an inalienable one: members of companies and the companies themselves could agree to refer disputes that might otherwise support unfair prejudice petitions to arbitration, provided that the types of remedies sought were not, inter alia, in a category that was limited by public policy or sought to bind third parties or affected the public at large, so as to limit the scope of the available arbitrations.”

“In an appropriate case, where a significant shareholder, who, as a result of being such a shareholder, was appointed to a management role within the company, then engaged in a course of conduct in that role involving improper assertion of rights of control over the practical management of the affairs of the company, that conduct was capable of being conduct of the affairs of the company in an unfairly prejudicial manner for the purposes of s 994 of the Companies Act 2006.”

“The court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration on a petition brought under s 459 of the Companies Act 1985 where the unfair prejudice relied on was caused by the alleged contravention of s 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by a director of a company in liquidation who had become the director of another company that was known by a prohibited name.”